GE buys out entire NYT print paper in historic first
axios.com
axios.com
You would think that it would be easy to do a reprint but some shops were too afraid to buy those again. The mayor is still in charge of the city.
article in french: https://www.elle.fr/Societe/News/Puteaux-la-maire-a-fait-ach...
And I totally didn't notice. Shows how much attention I give to the ads I guess.
When I saw this here on HN, I thought wait, really? Went to look at the paper -- yup, I just didn't notice. What an odd coincidence that I happened to have a print NYT on hand when I saw this on HN.
Very different to GE trying to explain why a troubled but long standing NYSE conglomerate is unbundling itself.
Here is the full copy of Apple’s Newsweek buyout
https://archive.org/details/Newsweek-1984-Macintosh-brochure...
And yes. Apple did advertise in a week they knew would have a huge print run.
[EDIT: although the HN title doesn't convey it, GE also bought out "most of [the NYT's] premier digital advertising real estate." ]
At the same time I'm a bit concerned by the influence advertisers and their interests have on media in general. Catering to advertisers does not always seem to align with the possibly more intrinsic goals and values of a newspaper, for example. Or what I would want from a newspaper.
The good news is that the New York Times is making a much higher proportion of its revenue from readers (thanks to the growth in digital subscriptions), while advertising revenue is much lower than it used to be, so, whatever effect it did have, it should be less now.
link to price chart: https://g.co/kgs/rsz5vj
(EDIT: and also any dividend they may have paid out over that time period.)
Regardless of what you see on that chart, this is not correct at all.
I bought in October 2020 when the price began to bounce up or trend up from a long-term low. I am up on that investment more than 25% as of this morning. I also bought Ford just as their stock began to bounce off of the lows in early 2020 and am doing well on it too.
Your performance on any stock purchase is strongly tied to the date you purchased it and the health of the company at the time. I watched these stocks of old-school conglomerates decline as people moved money to new tech offerings. These companies are not going anywhere so I bought when the price movement confirmed a new up trend and have held since.
I did the same thing years ago with Corning in late May of 2002, when at the time, they were the only company on earth that produced the glass for LCD display monitors and they produced most of the fiber-optic cable and the pc industry was beginning to recover while entities everywhere were planning to upgrade fiber-optics after the huge dot-com bust. I paid just over $1/share as it built the right side of the cup pattern on a big bounce. Corning survived of course and went on to continue to dominate glass-making with Gorilla glass being nearly ubiquitous in consumer products not to mention their huge fiber-optics production.
GE used to be into everything. They have shed a lot of under-performing or non-aligned assets but they still have a huge role in diesel-electric locomotives, jet engines, etc.
They will spin off a few things but that only allows them to improve focus.
At least GE has real products to spin off.
Many of these new tech VC-backed XaaS operations (some of which I have occasionally invested in) have nothing more than slippery marketing ploys pitched to gullible, cash-rich investors who have money to burn.
It has gone without any need for repair far longer than other new refrigerators my extended family has bought, but it also doesn't have an ice maker or water filter- just a really dumb refrigerator and freezer that (knock on wood) Just Works.
(judge the quality of appliances by how much BROKEN ones sell for on the various sites)
330k subscribers on Twitter would be..what, a D-list influencer? I think of NYT as the preeminent newspaper of America. Granted, we're talking quantity versus quality. It's still jarring to consider the audience of individuals versus a media conglomerate nowadays.
Even if half the NYT papers go directly into the recycling without being opened, that's still going to be a larger reach than similar-counted twitters.
Also you can expect newspaper subscribers are paying a lot of attention to the paper's article, while a follower may be barely paying attention to any account they follow.
Additionally, newspaper articles probably drive a lot of tweets in ways that are difficult to measure fully.
The print ads probably don't cost nearly what they used to, since they reach so many fewer people, which is probably also part of the story of this being the first time someone paid for every print placement in an issue. 30 years ago it would have cost ridiculous sums of money, today it's much less.
(although the OP also says "in addition to most of its premier digital advertising real estate", so I don't know. when I go to nytimes.com without an ad-blocker, the first two ads I saw were for Ford; and "ruggable", the latter of which is definitely targeted to my personal tracked history. But clicking around more then I saw a huge GE one.)
I don't have the numbers at hand, but I recently read an article that said in the USA total market, far more money is currently spent on web ads than on all traditional media (including newspapers, magazines, and television too). Which, of course, has a lot to do with how newspapers are kind of dying...
Apple bought out all of Newsweek's 1984 Election issue ad space for Mac https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33220801
Is "print paper" a common term for advertising space?
That should give pause rather than congratulations.
Amazon had to buy the WP outright.
(a surprisingly similar situation to things people say about FTX, but with traditional banking and money laundering)